What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[Robittybob1]

Madeleine was abducted.  To support my statement of fact I give you the entire book “Madeleine” by Kate McCann, will that do?

No.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No.

Why not?  If we have to accept Amaral’s noble intentions because he says so and G-Unit can use his words as a cite to prove them why not accept Kate McCann’s interpretation of events as proof that they happened that way and accept my cite as proof?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Let's see what this means from the perspective of libel.

1.  Eleanor is talking about a public figure - Goncalo Amaral.
2.  Eleanor is saying he wrote the book because he needed money.

You could ask is this statement a true or false statement, but when you consider that it makes little to no difference to GA's reputation and therefore there is no chance of GA suing Eleanor for damages.

Should it then be judged as opinion stated as fact or not?  That is a good question and I see the issue as to what sort of fact is being said. 
Is it a personal fact or non-fact (true or false statement about a person)
Is it a non-personal fact (the fact can be backed by a cite.)
Is it an opinion about a non-personal fact.  (must be stated in a way it is obvious to be opinion, "I  think" "I believe" or IMO.)

Is this the start of a way of telling whether a statement is libel or not?

More to the point should I have received a warning and points for saying Amaral resigned to cash in on the case when points awarded for calling a man a hustler who sold his story to the press and embellished the story (no evidence supplied to back it up) were removed and the post deemed not libellous?  This is really important and its a point all you mods are studiously avoiding - why?

Apply the ruled evenly and fairly or not at all!

[Robittybob1]

here in australia ex police have written books about cases even unsolved   caases  im sure  they have in the  uk  too  so why is it a  crime  that   GA  did?

Do these Australian books blame the case on a specific suspect?  If the books in Australia damage a person's reputation and they seek legal advice they could claim damages from the author.    It was a civil case not a criminal case.
GA didn't commit a crime but he would have been accused of breaking a law related to protecting a person's reputation.

[faithlilly]

He sold a house to his brother which his brother then started to renovate.  He took his brother's money without handing over The Deeds and then sold it to someone else without returning his brother's money.  His brother then eventually took him to Court.  A case which his brother won, but was only awarded monthly payments of the return of his capital.

There were also other mortgages on two other houses, one of which was repossessed.  I think they lived in the other one.

Amaral's wife, Sofia Leal was a joint owner in these dealings and was ultimately held jointly responsible, although I am not sure of her culpability.  And then there was the Income Tax problem.  It all amounted to a very large sum of money.  Which is one of the reasons for why his assets from The Book were eventually frozen by The Court.  And nothing much to do with The McCanns at all.

I could tell you more but what would be the point.
 
For all I know Amaral could have inadvertently got himself into such horrendous debt.  I myself have watched such a horror story from within my own family.  Which is why I live in a hovel in France.  But at least it is My Hovel.

So Amaral paid a monthly amount to his brother...had a house repossessed. There is no evidence that there was a huge tax Bill...although I have seen it passed around supporter sites for years.

To say that his frozen assets was nothing much to do with the parents is simply untrue.

[Vertigo Swirl]

He sold a house to his brother which his brother then started to renovate.  He took his brother's money without handing over The Deeds and then sold it to someone else without returning his brother's money.  His brother then eventually took him to Court.  A case which his brother won, but was only awarded monthly payments of the return of his capital.

There were also other mortgages on two other houses, one of which was repossessed.  I think they lived in the other one.

Amaral's wife, Sofia Leal was a joint owner in these dealings and was ultimately held jointly responsible, although I am not sure of her culpability.  And then there was the Income Tax problem.  It all amounted to a very large sum of money.  Which is one of the reasons for why his assets from The Book were eventually frozen by The Court.  And nothing much to do with The McCanns at all.

I could tell you more but what would be the point.
 
For all I know Amaral could have inadvertently got himself into such horrendous debt.  I myself have watched such a horror story from within my own family.  Which is why I live in a hovel in France.  But at least it is My Hovel.

The first part of your post rather confirms my opinion that Amaral is not an honourable man but is largely motivated by self enrichment.

[Robittybob1]

Why not?  If we have to accept Amaral’s noble intentions because he says so and G-Unit can use his words as a cite to prove them why not accept Kate McCann’s interpretation of events as proof that they happened that way and accept my cite as proof?

Could all crimes be solved this way? I think Kate's book is very good, but does it come close to solving the crime?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Could all crimes be solved this way? I think Kate's book is very good, but does it come close to solving the crime?

It’s not about solving the crime, it’s about providing the author’s words as a cite to prove something is true.

[Robittybob1]

So Amaral paid a monthly amount to his brother...had a house repossessed. There is no evidence that there was a huge tax Bill...although I have seen it passed around supporter sites for years.

To say that his frozen assets was nothing much to do with the parents is simply untrue.

According to the article in the OP there was a time limit of 1 year on the damaging statement.  So if these claims against Amaral have been around for years there is no way he could sue for damages at this stage, so why do we bother calling it libel?

[Mr Gray]

The first part of your post rather confirms my opinion that Amaral is not an honourable man but is largely motivated by self enrichment.

I think added to thar he was totally incompetent and actually believed the rubbish  he wrote in his book. The whole Portuguese case was built on a lie. The main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts. What a bunch of idiots.

[Robittybob1]

It’s not about solving the crime, it’s about providing the author’s words as a cite to prove something is true.

But what claim does Kate make when writing her book?  Amaral claims it was a way of expressing his opinion.  Does Kate make a claim? 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Amaral is never going to admit that he left the police in order to cash in on the case but that doesn’t mean I can’t say so because it is self evident. He has a history of exploiting others for financial gain, he did resign, he did admit he wanted to speak freely on the case and he did get a publisher that printed up 40000 copies of his book, all of which had a price printed on them and which he actively promoted at book signings.  But I am punished for saying so while others can say far worse about others without providing any evidence for their claims and have their warnings and points rescinded.  Please explain how that is fair?

[Vertigo Swirl]

But what claim does Kate make when writing her book?  Amaral claims it was a way of expressing his opinion.  Does Kate make a claim?

You keep on avoiding my questions to ask questions of your own so until you start giving some direct answers I have nothing more to say to you.

[Robittybob1]

I think added to thar he was totally incompetent and actually believed the rubbish  he wrote in his book. The whole Portuguese case was built on a lie. The main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts. What a bunch of idiots.

Now that is a step too far.  That might be making me think in terms of libel at this level of bringing him down.

[Mr Gray]

Amaral is never going to admit that he left the police in order to cash in on the case but that doesn’t mean I can’t say so because it is self evident. He has a history of exploiting others for financial gain, he did resign, he did admit he wanted to speak freely on the case and he did get a publisher that printed up 40000 copies of his book, all of which had a price printed on them and which he actively promoted at book signings.  But I am punished for saying so while others can say far worse about others without providing any evidence for their claims and have their warnings and points rescinded.  Please explain how that is fair?

It isn't fair but it's clear to me the forum is biased against the McCanns. For years it's been OK to criticise the McCanns and anyone who supports them